Joined: 4/30/2012Posts: 329Location: under bright lights, United States

Even the bible has conflicting lessons on taking another's life, but I think we lower ourselves as human beings to resort to killing for any offense. I do not think stooping as low as the offender is the best deterrant.

Congrats on all the wealth & power you death penalty proponents must have, but some of us without the protection of money and connections have less faith in the American justice system. Trying to stop the execution of innocent people is hardly "unicorns and rainbows". Of course there are humans who should be locked away for the rest of their lives, we have life without parole for that. There is just no need for the government to kill its citizens to satisfy the blood lust of some.

Death penalty never avoid a single crime, cause all criminals think that they will never be catched. A civilized nation should use better penalties then that. The prize in case of a false judgment is to high. We should never let us overwhelm by brutal crimes, the society and the law should not judge emotional. Dangerous criminals should stay locked away till they die.

You ignore the deterrent effect that having a death penalty might have on young people who haven't yet embarked on a life of crime. You want to say that not one single person chooses the straight path because of the possibility of being killed for choosing the crooked path. I say that's unlikely. But we know that the case of the death row inmate gets the closest scrutiny possible. Much closer than the lifers. Much less likely to let a wrongful conviction stand. So that alone is a benefit to those who actually have a wrongful conviction.

So pick a number. One wrongful execution per year in a population of 300 million? Ten? One in ten years? Why would we demand perfection on death penalties when we can't be held to that standard for lifers? And if one hundred people or ten or only one choose the straight path each year as a result of the existence of the fatal option, because people sometimes do choose to avoid behaviors where death is a possible result, why would we ignore that benefit?

Wealth and power has nothing to do with it. And blood lust? Please. It's just a prick and then they're dead. They don't even feel it. It's not as if they're beheaded publicly with their heads on a stick to serve as a reminder. And they're not hung from a noose for all the world to see.

And I'd rather someone with no regard for human life be put to death than to have them rot away in prison....where my money goes to provide their 3 square meals a day, cable, and internet access. And enough time to educate themselves and figure out a way to beat the system and get themselves out. Yes. It has happened numerous times where someone with life in prison used the library and educated themselves on legal matters and found a loophole to spring themselves.

So again, I say, let the punishment fit the crime. Sure, their death doesn't change circumstances, but at least it's justice.

Joined: 4/30/2012Posts: 329Location: under bright lights, United States

jollylolly wrote:

Congrats on all the wealth & power you death penalty proponents must have, but some of us without the protection of money and connections have less faith in the American justice system. Trying to stop the execution of innocent people is hardly "unicorns and rainbows". Of course there are humans who should be locked away for the rest of their lives, we have life without parole for that. There is just no need for the government to kill its citizens to satisfy the blood lust of some.

Are we not giving short courses instead of a ticket? These may be based on self learning; but they are short courses for driving better.If I still can't communicate, I feel I am at a complete loss to effectively communicate at least for present.

You can elect to take a drivers' education course; it's your choice. But that's not what you said. You said they have to get counseling. Mandatory. And you still haven't answered any of my other questions. Like why you seem to think running a red light is equal to being a murderer.

You can elect to take a drivers' education course; it's your choice. But that's not what you said. You said they have to get counseling. Mandatory. And you still haven't answered any of my other questions. Like why you seem to think running a red light is equal to being a murderer.[/quote

I did respond.My view is an offence, civil or criminal, is violation of the laws of land and society.The running over the signal lights is violation of laws of land. It endangers human life; one's own self as well as others and does take many innocent lives every year.Similarly, murder is violation of laws of land and of society; in anger, frustration or whatever one's psychological condition may be.It is no defense that I was angry, enraged or frustrated. As being drunk is no defense to violating traffic signals.And if one can elect drivers' education course as choice, so let the murders too give a choice to elect either to be put to death or choose a psychological course.I am sure all offenders would like to choose psychological courses, like we, violating traffic laws prefer to have drivers' education course rather than a ticket.I believe we should end this debate here as its been prolonged too much, without either side been able to convince the other.

You can elect to take a drivers' education course; it's your choice. But that's not what you said. You said they have to get counseling. Mandatory. And you still haven't answered any of my other questions. Like why you seem to think running a red light is equal to being a murderer.[/quote

I did respond.My view is an offence, civil or criminal, is violation of the laws of land and society.The running over the signal lights is violation of laws of land. It endangers human life; one's own self as well as others and does take many innocent lives every year.Similarly, murder is violation of laws of land and of society; in anger, frustration or whatever one's psychological condition may be.It is no defense that I was angry, enraged or frustrated. As being drunk is no defense to violating traffic signals.And if one can elect drivers' education course as choice, so let the murders too give a choice to elect either to be put to death or choose a psychological course.I am sure all offenders would like to choose psychological courses, like we, violating traffic laws prefer to have drivers' education course rather than a ticket.I believe we should end this debate here as its been prolonged too much, without either side been able to convince the other.

People that run red lights, whether by accident, through carelessness, or by design, are not criminals of the same caliber as people who murder, whether by accident, through carelessness, or by design. Society has decided that because murder is such a serious offense, we should take the circumstances leading up to the act into account. Society has decided that the accidental taking of another life isn't murder - it's manslaughter. Society has also decided that the willful taking of a life, with malice aforethought, is one of the most heinous crimes a person can commit, and the murderer forfeits the right to be a part of society. My view is that since the person can never be rehabilitated, he'll always be a danger to those around him; therefore society is within it's rights to eliminate that danger to it's members. My point of view is backed up by statistics. If you really want me to search out rates of recidivism among violent criminals, I will. It's pretty much common knowledge that a violent criminal is more apt to be a repeat offender than he is to go straight.

Your point of view is that the murderer or rapist can be cured, and can then go on and live a happy life as a peaceful and productive member of society. You keep to this point of view, despite the fact that you can't find one psychological study that bears positive results in the treatment of violent criminals, and despite the decades of statistics that show otherwise.

You're still saying that running a red light and murder are morally equal. If you can't see the difference, then I'm glad I don't live in your town.

I think lots of people here are missing the point. The OP asked us whether or not we were for or against the death penalty. My stance is that I'm all for it. I know there are people with enough wealth and power to avoid it for a much lighter sentence.

But the fact remains that if someone deserves it, I think they should receive it.

P.S. Please keep the debate here, where it belongs. And don't waste your precious time flooding my inbox with all the issues you have with my personal opinions.

Would it make a difference to some of you if we renamed it? Instead of death penalty we called it "Deadly Justice". Or, to be really using words to prejudice people "The Final Solution". I think we'd sure get a lot of our Jewish friends a little aggravated. Actually, I'm ambivalent on it. In the case of a monster like John Wayne Gacy, in which there was no doubt as I believe he confessed finally. I'm all for it. The problem is how much it costs the state [us] to fight all the lengthy appeals. It can run into millions. In most cases I say lock them up and let their lawyers spend money trying to get them out. I read that is much cheaper for us.

People that run red lights, whether by accident, through carelessness, or by design, are not criminals of the same caliber as people who murder, whether by accident, through carelessness, or by design. Society has decided that because murder is such a serious offense, we should take the circumstances leading up to the act into account. Society has decided that the accidental taking of another life isn't murder - it's manslaughter. Society has also decided that the willful taking of a life, with malice aforethought, is one of the most heinous crimes a person can commit, and the murderer forfeits the right to be a part of society. My view is that since the person can never be rehabilitated, he'll always be a danger to those around him; therefore society is within it's rights to eliminate that danger to it's members. My point of view is backed up by statistics. If you really want me to search out rates of recidivism among violent criminals, I will. It's pretty much common knowledge that a violent criminal is more apt to be a repeat offender than he is to go straight.

Your point of view is that the murderer or rapist can be cured, and can then go on and live a happy life as a peaceful and productive member of society. You keep to this point of view, despite the fact that you can't find one psychological study that bears positive results in the treatment of violent criminals, and despite the decades of statistics that show otherwise.

You're still saying that running a red light and murder are morally equal. If you can't see the difference, then I'm glad I don't live in your town.

I had thought not to keep respond; but your last post has compelled me to respond once again.I do not see all crimes as severe as others; rather to me, every cime or violation of laws is an indiviual violation done in very sepcific and specail set of circumstances and the study of these circumstances is a must for treating the violators of the laws.But to take your logic; would one agree to be part of the society wherein the adulterer is put to stoning & death?After all the said society has those laws determined for violators. Surely a big NO.The reason being that a less developed and retrogressive society is not part of the social setup of collective human society as a whole.The human development has moved on from over 4,000 years ago of Juda and 1,400 years of Mohammad.Now the WILL (INTENT) of the offenders ( in the case of adultry - the adulterers) is taken into consideration before imparting any sentence (if at all necessay).And surely its good that we don't live in same town as we don't see eye to eye and would have debated more than attended our jobs.

So pick a number. One wrongful execution per year in a population of 300 million? Ten? One in ten years? Why would we demand perfection on death penalties when we can't be held to that standard for lifers? And if one hundred people or ten or only one choose the straight path each year as a result of the existence of the fatal option, because people sometimes do choose to avoid behaviors where death is a possible result, why would we ignore that benefit?

Well that utilitarian argument is all very well unless you or one of your loved ones is the 'one'.

The death penalty has not stopped the US from having one of the highest murder rates and prison occupancy rates in the world.

And American justice is much more readily available to the wealthy. Do you really think the case of an under-educated poor black man gets the same scrutiny as that of rich white man? Naivety in the extreme to think that the the justice system is a level playing field, or that it gives all cases the scrutiny it should. Look at the last case on the wikipedia miscarriage of justice page for the US and and ask yourself if your statement about added levels of scrutiny holds true.

I had thought not to keep respond; but your last post has compelled me to respond once again.I do not see all crimes as severe as others; rather to me, every cime or violation of laws is an indiviual violation done in very sepcific and specail set of circumstances and the study of these circumstances is a must for treating the violators of the laws.But to take your logic; would one agree to be part of the society wherein the adulterer is put to stoning & death?After all the said society has those laws determined for violators. Surely a big NO.The reason being that a less developed and retrogressive society is not part of the social setup of collective human society as a whole.The human development has moved on from over 4,000 years ago of Juda and 1,400 years of Mohammad.Now the WILL (INTENT) of the offenders ( in the case of adultry - the adulterers) is taken into consideration before imparting any sentence (if at all necessay).And surely its good that we don't live in same town as we don't see eye to eye and would have debated more than attended our jobs.

I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that Capital Punishment would be an appropriate punishment for adultery. In the grand scheme of things, though, there are times when it's use is appropriate.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.